Thursday, January 25, 2007
Hail to 'The Queen'
Now I understand what all the buzz is about over Helen Mirren's performance in the movie The Queen. Amazing, spell-binding. Go ahead and give her the Oscar now.
I haven't seen all of the other nominated performances, but I find it hard to imagine how they could be any better (or even as good). Mirren nails it as Queen Elizabeth II in the days after the death of Princess Diana.
The really good thing about it is that it is so good even the Anglophobic voters of the Academy can't deny it, as they have so often in the past. The only times they have rewarded British actors is when they have known they'd be laughed at mercilessly for bypassing a hands-down winner -- like Alec Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai.
Of course, there was a least some tittering when they snubbed Peter O'Toole's performance in Lawrence of Arabia. Hello? The Best Picture winner was a one-man, one-character show, and the actor playing that man/character wasn't the Best Actor? How does that happen?
And Richard Burton never won an Oscar? Ludicrous. There are endless other examples of the slighting of the British film thespians -- including Mirren herself when she was nominated, and should have won, for Gosford Park, and the amazing Imelda Staunton in Vera Drake -- but not this time. She'll win, along with three African-American actors, shutting out white-American actors for the first time in a long time, maybe forever.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they used to say on "Seinfeld." Maybe it will alert the Hollywood community to the fact that Ashton Kutcher and Vince Vaughn are not the cornerstones of the next generation of esteemed American actors. And, try as he may, Adam Sandler isn't, either.
(For the record, don't throw Sir Anthony Hopkins in my face on this subject. He never won for his fine "British" roles, only the one where he portrayed an American psycho/cannibal.)
I haven't seen all of the other nominated performances, but I find it hard to imagine how they could be any better (or even as good). Mirren nails it as Queen Elizabeth II in the days after the death of Princess Diana.
The really good thing about it is that it is so good even the Anglophobic voters of the Academy can't deny it, as they have so often in the past. The only times they have rewarded British actors is when they have known they'd be laughed at mercilessly for bypassing a hands-down winner -- like Alec Guinness in The Bridge on the River Kwai.
Of course, there was a least some tittering when they snubbed Peter O'Toole's performance in Lawrence of Arabia. Hello? The Best Picture winner was a one-man, one-character show, and the actor playing that man/character wasn't the Best Actor? How does that happen?
And Richard Burton never won an Oscar? Ludicrous. There are endless other examples of the slighting of the British film thespians -- including Mirren herself when she was nominated, and should have won, for Gosford Park, and the amazing Imelda Staunton in Vera Drake -- but not this time. She'll win, along with three African-American actors, shutting out white-American actors for the first time in a long time, maybe forever.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they used to say on "Seinfeld." Maybe it will alert the Hollywood community to the fact that Ashton Kutcher and Vince Vaughn are not the cornerstones of the next generation of esteemed American actors. And, try as he may, Adam Sandler isn't, either.
(For the record, don't throw Sir Anthony Hopkins in my face on this subject. He never won for his fine "British" roles, only the one where he portrayed an American psycho/cannibal.)
Thursday, January 18, 2007
What a Choice, The Donald or The Rosie?
Wow, what choices we are faced with these days. Withdrawal from Iraqi or The Surge? Barack or Hillary? Rosie O'Donnell or Donald Trump? Caring about the latter or not?
For me, the choice is simple. It boils down to which one of these self-made media darlings understands what's at stake, which is virtually nothing beyond their egos. On that criterion, you have to go with Rosie, who knows it's a big joke and that her job is to make jokes. The Donald, on the other hand, doesn't get it because his ego (not to mention his overblown hair) gets in the way. He is a joke that even he doesn't get. I mean, how do you take it seriously when he complains that Rosie shouldn't have said he'd gone bankrupt several times because he's never gone into bankruptcy personally (but several of his enterprises -- many of which carried his name -- have).
It is even worse now that he got his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We can only hope that Rosie has a dog and she will walk it so that it can make a daily comment directly on Trump's sidewalk star. Fitting, I'd say. And at least we won't have to step in it.
For me, the choice is simple. It boils down to which one of these self-made media darlings understands what's at stake, which is virtually nothing beyond their egos. On that criterion, you have to go with Rosie, who knows it's a big joke and that her job is to make jokes. The Donald, on the other hand, doesn't get it because his ego (not to mention his overblown hair) gets in the way. He is a joke that even he doesn't get. I mean, how do you take it seriously when he complains that Rosie shouldn't have said he'd gone bankrupt several times because he's never gone into bankruptcy personally (but several of his enterprises -- many of which carried his name -- have).
It is even worse now that he got his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We can only hope that Rosie has a dog and she will walk it so that it can make a daily comment directly on Trump's sidewalk star. Fitting, I'd say. And at least we won't have to step in it.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Those Un-"Reality" Shows?
They keep coming up with what TV folks like to call "reality shows," but just how much reality do they have? I mean, is dropping a bunch of greedy, self-absorbed people onto a deserted island or into a wild jungle and having them compete for "survival" (and a million dollars) anything but artificial and unreal? Or having people scurrying around the globe in some kind of fabricated "race"? Or having them eat worms and cockroaches?
To make it even worse, they count competitions like "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" as "reality" shows. How crazy is that? They are talent shows, harking back to the days of Ted Mack and the Original Amateur Hour. Nothing new or realistic about them.
The others can only be called "gimmick" shows to be even half-accurate. Hell, fictional programs like "Law and Order" and "Brothers and Sisters" are ten times more realistic than any of these turkeys (artificial turkeys, excuse me).
Erik Estrada and La Toya Jackson running around the streets of Muncie, Indiana, pretending to be cops-for-a-day? Yeah, that's reality for you.
If you want reality on television, try the Discovery Channel or the History Channel (but only if you want WWII 24/7). Or, God forbid, the news channels (which does NOT include Fox News). Better yet, just watch Comedy Central. Laughter is as real as it gets these days.
To make it even worse, they count competitions like "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" as "reality" shows. How crazy is that? They are talent shows, harking back to the days of Ted Mack and the Original Amateur Hour. Nothing new or realistic about them.
The others can only be called "gimmick" shows to be even half-accurate. Hell, fictional programs like "Law and Order" and "Brothers and Sisters" are ten times more realistic than any of these turkeys (artificial turkeys, excuse me).
Erik Estrada and La Toya Jackson running around the streets of Muncie, Indiana, pretending to be cops-for-a-day? Yeah, that's reality for you.
If you want reality on television, try the Discovery Channel or the History Channel (but only if you want WWII 24/7). Or, God forbid, the news channels (which does NOT include Fox News). Better yet, just watch Comedy Central. Laughter is as real as it gets these days.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Saturday Night Dead
A recent article from the L. A. Times went into great detail about how comedy writers are complaining about the new Aaron Sorkin weekly series, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." It seems that several of the writers -- most of whom have written at some time for "Saturday Night Live," the show "Studio 60" is supposed to parallel -- hate the show because, in their view, the sketches portrayed on the program aren't funny.
There is some truth to that, but it completely misses the point. "Studio 60" isn't about the sketches; it is about the behind-the-scenes interaction between writers, directors, producers, etc. It isn't a comedy show about a comedy show; it is a dramatic show about a comedy show, with some comedy sprinkled in.
OK, so it isn't "The West Wing," or even "Sports Night," but it is still a solid Sorkin effort. It has its moments.
The real irony, though, is that the comedy writers are saying the sketches on the program aren't as funny as the ones on "SNL." Hello? The sketches on "SNL" haven't been funny for at least the past two decades, or whenever its target audience sank from the original semi-intelligent adult level to the pre-pubescent range.
The writers interviewed for the Times piece presumably are too young and, since they apparently wrote for "SNL" in its more dismal decades, too comedy-dead to recognize just how
authentic the "Studio 60" sketches are (although they are actually sharper than the current "SNL" ones). Apparently, the people doing the new show remember -- or looked into the archives -- when "SNL" was truly funny, back in the Belushi-Ackyroyd-Radner-Murray years, and compared them with the dreck of the more recent incarnations, the Farley-Sandler-Ferrell years.
Maybe "Studio 60" is simply reflecting, accurately, that sketch comedy of the "SNL" variety is no long the sharpest, most cutting-edge comedy out there these days. They have long been surpassed by TV fare like "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report," "The Dave Chappelle Show," and even "The Blue Collar Comedy Tour" (I know Larry the Cable Guy is a public embarrassment, but he's still funnier than anyone on "SNL" or "Studio 60") and by the live standup comics, from Lewis Black to Sarah Silverman.
So, to the "comedy writers" interviewed for that article, we can only say, "Get over yourselves. The stuff you wrote wasn't funny, either, and you need to look elsewhere for the necessary clues to what real comedy is. You may want to drag out some old Lenny Bruce and George Carlin records, too."
There is some truth to that, but it completely misses the point. "Studio 60" isn't about the sketches; it is about the behind-the-scenes interaction between writers, directors, producers, etc. It isn't a comedy show about a comedy show; it is a dramatic show about a comedy show, with some comedy sprinkled in.
OK, so it isn't "The West Wing," or even "Sports Night," but it is still a solid Sorkin effort. It has its moments.
The real irony, though, is that the comedy writers are saying the sketches on the program aren't as funny as the ones on "SNL." Hello? The sketches on "SNL" haven't been funny for at least the past two decades, or whenever its target audience sank from the original semi-intelligent adult level to the pre-pubescent range.
The writers interviewed for the Times piece presumably are too young and, since they apparently wrote for "SNL" in its more dismal decades, too comedy-dead to recognize just how
authentic the "Studio 60" sketches are (although they are actually sharper than the current "SNL" ones). Apparently, the people doing the new show remember -- or looked into the archives -- when "SNL" was truly funny, back in the Belushi-Ackyroyd-Radner-Murray years, and compared them with the dreck of the more recent incarnations, the Farley-Sandler-Ferrell years.
Maybe "Studio 60" is simply reflecting, accurately, that sketch comedy of the "SNL" variety is no long the sharpest, most cutting-edge comedy out there these days. They have long been surpassed by TV fare like "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report," "The Dave Chappelle Show," and even "The Blue Collar Comedy Tour" (I know Larry the Cable Guy is a public embarrassment, but he's still funnier than anyone on "SNL" or "Studio 60") and by the live standup comics, from Lewis Black to Sarah Silverman.
So, to the "comedy writers" interviewed for that article, we can only say, "Get over yourselves. The stuff you wrote wasn't funny, either, and you need to look elsewhere for the necessary clues to what real comedy is. You may want to drag out some old Lenny Bruce and George Carlin records, too."
